#5A Kavanaugh’s primary defense was both irrelevant & false

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

Kavanaugh’s primary defense – the other witnesses’ claims that they don’t recall anything – were both irrelevant and mostly false

The supposedly blank memories of all the witnesses who were present on July 1, 1982, are not believable. They reflect the existence of a conspiracy led by Justice Kavanaugh, as explained herein. The purpose of the conspiracy is to obscure the fact that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party, where she testified that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

The Kavanaugh defense theory was that if the event where Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted didn’t happen, then he didn’t sexually assault her. So, she just imagined being at the house-party she described, and she imagined being sexually assaulted. The essence of the Republicans’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh was – the victim is delusional.

Justice Kavanaugh’s involvement in that conspiracy is relevant both to the extent of his guilt of wrongdoing and to his suitability to be a federal judge at any level. His leadership of a multi-decade, multi-person conspiracy to subvert justice makes him singularly unsuitable to serve as a federal judge.

That conspiracy is one of several reasons Justice Kavanaugh has a strong case to make for the most unsuitable Supreme Court justice of all time – the GOAT (greatest of all time).

How did we get to this point?

This is Blog #5A in my series of blog posts. Blog #1 through Blog #4 explained the three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford.

So, it as a given that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of the sexual assault. The assault occurred during a July 1, 1982 house-party at which either seven or eight people were present, in addition to Dr. Ford. See Blog #2.

Yet, the seven or eight other people who were present all claim to have no memories concerning the event. That even includes Dr. Ford’s two alleged assailants – Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

Those other witnesses, seven boys and Ms. Keyser, each claim to remember nothing! They do not claim to have a memory of the event and to recall that Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser were not present. They do not claim to remember that they did not attend the house-party. They claim to have no relevant memory one way or the other.

We will refer to the other witnesses claiming to have no relevant memory as a “non-recollection” claim.

Blog #5A topics

The critical issues related to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims are so extensive that we will examine them in three parts – in Blog #5A, Blog #5B, and Blog #6. This Blog #5A examines the broader issues concerning the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims.

What was their political and media impact?
Did the collective non-recollection claims evidence a conspiracy?
What weight should have been given to non-recollection claims as evidence?
Was the weight they were given appropriate or excessive?

Blog #5B specifically looks at Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim. And Blog #6 looks explicitly at the non-recollection claims of the seven boys who were present on July 1, 1982.

The non-recollection claims of the others who were present have played a crucial role

The non-recollection claims of the other seven or eight other people who were present on July 1, 1982, have played a critically important role in two contexts.

As the centerpiece of Kavanaugh’s defense strategy

The other witnesses’ non-recollection claims were the centerpiece of the Republicans’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh. As described in Blog #3, Justice Kavanaugh dishonestly characterized the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims as refutations or Dr. Ford’s allegation. In her defense of Justice Kavanaugh, Senator Collins also dishonestly characterized P.J. Smyth’s non-recollection claim as a refutation of Dr. Ford’s allegation.

Senator Collins openly treated the irrelevant non-recollection claims, which were literally evidence of nothing, as if they were evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t occur. Senator Collins even extended the concept of giving importance to irrelevant evidence of nothing from the non-recollection claims to failures to take action by both known and unknown witnesses.

Senator Collins argued that the fact that the witnesses at the party hadn’t come forward with statements helpful to Dr. Ford was evidence the event she described did not happen. The senator specifically cited the fact that the unknown person who drove Dr. Ford home didn’t come forward as evidence that the event didn’t happen. The senator even irrationally cited the fact that the people who were at the party didn’t call Dr. Ford afterward to inquire how she was doing, as evidence that the house-party where she was sexually assaulted didn’t happen.

Pretending the event didn’t happen was crucial to the Republican defense strategy. It permitted Justice Kavanaugh to pretend that he doesn’t remember the event and to avoid answering questions about it.

In distorting the press coverage of Dr. Ford’s allegation against Justice Kavanaugh

A second context in which the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims played a critical role concerns the news media coverage of Dr. Ford’s allegation. The exaggerated importance attributed to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims distorted the press coverage of her sexual-assault allegation.

That distortion had a significant impact. It is a reason why the dispositive evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt has been overlooked or ignored by observers in the media.

That reason is not a satisfactory explanation for the failure by the news media to cover the readily apparent evidence of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt. But I’ve been unable to identify another reason for that news media failure, which makes any sense and which doesn’t involve malfeasance as well as a reporting failure.

A conspiracy exists to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982, house-party

At a minimum, there is a two-person conspiracy among Kavanaugh and Judge

Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were alone in the second-floor bedroom with Dr. Ford. That is a virtual certainty, as explained in Blog #2. So, they couldn’t reasonably have forgotten that encounter, even if there had been no sexual assault.

Further, Dr. Ford testified that Mr. Judge’s reaction indicated that he recalled the interaction in the bedroom when she encountered him later that summer. His discomfort during that encounter is confirmation that he hasn’t forgotten the house-party now, in my view.

Even if the only evidence of the event described by Dr. Ford had been her testimony, Justice Kavanaugh’s and Mr. Judge’s claims to have no memory of the event wouldn’t have been credible. Even then, their non-recollection claims could only have been true if Dr. Ford had fabricated or imagined the entire story.

The conspiracy is based on making false non-recollection claims.

After Dr. Ford testified, it should never have been viewed as a possibility by any senator or observer that her story was either a total fabrication or a delusion. Yet the entire Republican defense strategy for Justice Kavanaugh was based on using the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims to support the assertion that Dr. Ford is delusional.

So, a conspiracy to hide the fact of Dr. Ford’s presence at the July 1, 1982 house-party does exist. The conspiracy includes Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge for sure, in my view.

The conspiracy is reflected in their mutual non-recollection claims. They have each denied any memory of an event that they both must recall and which they know that the other recalls, in my opinion. They could only have lied about what they remember if they were sure that the other one would also lie.

My conclusion is that the conspiracy includes most or all of the witnesses

The critical questions about the conspiracy include the following. “How many witnesses are involved in the conspiracy?” “What have the conspirators’ activities been?”

My analysis indicates that the conspiracy must also include most or all of the group made up of the five male fact-witnesses and Ms. Keyser – the “uninvolved” witnesses. More specifically, it is evident that Justice Kavanaugh believed in both 1982 and 2018 that his co-conspirators included all of the uninvolved witnesses plus Mr. Judge.

The evidence of his belief is discussed throughout Blogs #5 and #6. Blog #5B contains my analysis concerning Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim. Blog#6 includes my analysis of the non-recollection claims of the male witnesses.

Justice Kavanaugh bet the ranch that his non-recollection conspiracy includes all of the other witnesses

Another way to address the issue is to ask, “Is there any reason not to accept Justice Kavanaugh’s apparent belief that all of the other witnesses are his co-conspirators?” He manifested that belief on two occasions, thirty-six years apart. My answer is, “No.”

We should trust his judgment on this. He had a lot riding on his belief being accurate when he continued with the confirmation process after Dr. Ford made her allegation and agreed to testify publicly.

Justice Kavanaugh gave pervasively false testimony that he knew could expose him to criminal prosecution if any of the others who were present on July 1, 1982, acknowledged recalling what we now know occurred. He claimed falsely and repeatedly that the event described by Dr. Ford never happened.

So, his belief in the number and commitment of his perceived co-conspirators was absolute. Justice Kavanaugh’s actions show he believed that all of the other witnesses were fully committed to the conspiracy.

There is an alternative perspective from which the non-recollection claims have been viewed that can make them seem material

How is it that other witnesses’ non-recollection claims could be treated as significant? Taken literally, the non-recollection claims are evidence of nothing.

Their claims are that they recall nothing. They have no memory of whether the event described by Dr. Ford occurred or not. They have no memory of whether the July 1, 1982 house-party happened or not. So, how could that have been viewed as evidence of anything?

What the alternative perspective is

The alternative perspective from which some observers have viewed the non-recollection claims ignores the literal meaning of the witnesses’ claims. It rejects the idea that all of the witnesses would not recall the event described by Dr. Ford if it had occurred. In particular, it rejects the idea that Ms. Keyser would not remember the house-party described by her friend Dr. Ford if it had happened.

Under that alternative perspective, either (1) Dr. Ford is lying or delusional, or (2) some or all of the other witnesses are lying about what they recall. Evidence that viewed literally would be immaterial (i.e., the non-recollection claims) is treated as being material evidence.

In theory, the alternative perspective could be applied either against or in support of Dr. Ford’s allegation. But in practice, it was only used to undermine her sexual-assault accusation, even though that was the less logical outcome.

There are two critical issues concerning the use of the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims as evidence

There are two significant concerns about the impacts of the failures to recall of the other witnesses. Those impacts affected both the political discussion in the Senate and the press coverage of Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings. The two concerns are briefly described immediately below and are discussed after that.

The weight that should have been given to the non-recollection claims

What weight, if any, should have been given to the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses? As explained further below, the answer to that question changed as the facts changed.

There were three significant evolutions in the facts. The first was when Dr. Ford gave her credible testimony about the sexual assault. The second was when Justice Kavanaugh testified about his summer of 1982 calendars and his July 1, 1982 calendar entry. The third evolution should have occurred during and after the confirmation hearing as each political or media observer analyzed the implications of the evidence about the July 1 house-party.

Was the political and media impact of the non-recollection claims inappropriate

Was inappropriate weight given to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims? The answer is, “Yes.”

Did Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim uniquely impact either the political discussion or the news media coverage of Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation against Justice Kavanaugh? The answer is, “Yes.” Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim did uniquely impact the political discussion and news media coverage of Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation.

The non-recollection claims, including Ms. Keyser’s, were used to question whether the event described by Dr. Ford – during which she was sexually assaulted – really occurred. But weight given to such claims should have changed as the facts evolved.

In the end, no weight should have been given to the non-recollection claims, as explained below. So, there was no justification for Ms. Keyser’s or the other non-recollection claims to have impacted either the political discussion or the news media coverage of Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation.

What weight should have been given to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims?

As noted above, the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims were the centerpiece of the Republicans’ defense of Justice Kavanaugh. Moreover, they impacted and distorted the news media coverage of Dr. Ford’s sexual-assault allegation.

There are three fact-scenarios to examine

We will consider what weight the non-recollection claims should have been given in three alternative fact-scenarios. The first fact-scenario is without any corroboration of Dr. Ford’s testimony beyond her prior consistent statements. The second is after the existence of Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry was revealed, but only considering its existence and not the implications thereof. The third fact-scenario also takes account of the common-sense and statistically-provable conclusion that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party.

Looking at all three scenarios helps to answer the question asked above. “What weight should have been given to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims?”

In two of the three fact-scenarios, no weight should have been given

My analysis of the fact-scenarios is detailed below in discussions of the individual scenarios. My summarized conclusions are as follows.

If the first fact-scenario reflected reality (i.e., no further corroboration), it might have been reasonable to treat the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses as having some evidentiary significance. It might have been reasonable, for example, to treat Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim as evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford did not occur.

However, under each of the other two fact-scenarios, the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses are immaterial as evidence against Dr. Ford. That applies both to Ms. Keyser and the male witnesses.

In the real world, every observer was operating under either fact-scenario 2 or fact-scenario 3. At a minimum, everyone had to be aware of the July 1, 1982 house-party.

So, no observer was justified in treating the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses as individually or collectively significant in undermining Dr. Ford’s allegation. That applies both to politicians, like Senator Collins, and the news media.

Scenario 1: The non-recollection claims viewed without further corroboration of Dr. Ford’s testimony

Someone must be lying

The non-recollection claims of the other witnesses would have had no evidentiary significance unless the alternative perspective referenced above were applied to conclude that someone must be lying. Under that perspective, the observer who uses it need only believe that some of the witnesses would recall the event if it occurred. It isn’t necessary to identify any specific witness who would remember the event.

Using the alternative perspective, an observer might decide that Dr. Ford is either lying or delusional about whether the event she described happened. To conclude that Dr. Ford is telling the truth would require accepting the inference that some or all the others are lying.

It might be difficult for the observer to imagine what the motivation might be for the uninvolved witnesses lie. They would have known that it would break the law to misrepresent what they recall. And if any such witness were to have lied, then any other witness could upset that plan by coming forward with the truth.

But if they were all in it together, there should be no way for them to get caught. It would be her truthful testimony against their collective dishonest non-recollection claims. How could that possibly go wrong as long as they all stick to their position?

Either Dr. Ford or Ms. Keyser must be lying

The belief that Ms. Keyser would have recalled the event described by Dr. Ford if it occurred was encouraged by Justice Kavanaugh and the Senate Republicans. The alternative perspective, explicitly applied to Ms. Keyser, was the core element of their defense strategy.

If Ms. Keyser would have recalled the event if she was there, and if she is telling the truth about not remembering it, then it didn’t happen. That would mean Dr. Ford’s testimony that the event occurred and that she was sexually assaulted reflected either a lie or a delusion. On the other hand, if Dr. Ford is telling the truth, then Ms. Keyser is lying about not recalling the event.

That strategy of advancing the alternative perspective, based on Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim, was visible both in Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony and in Senator Collins’ speech explaining her vote in favor of confirmation.

It’s wold be hard enough for observers to confront the possibility that the five uninvolved boys might lie about such a serious matter. It would be even more difficult to accept the possibility that a female, and Dr. Ford’s friend, might be lying about what she recalls.

The liars would be truly despicable

If Ms. Keyser was lying, as I believe, then she was doing so for the purpose of making her former friend Dr. Ford out to be delusional – a nut job. The secondary objective of that lie would have been to help Justice Kavanaugh evade responsibility for the sexual assault, the conspiracy, and giving pervasively false testimony about Dr. Ford’s allegation. The primary objective would have been to help him get confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Ms. Keyser shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than Justice Kavanaugh or the male witnesses. Her conduct, in that case, would be truly despicable. But it would be less so than Justice Kavanaugh’s behavior and no more despicable than the actions of any of the male witnesses who were part of the conspiracy.

The Republicans’ use of the alternative perspective was despicable, even in fact-scenario 1

Senator Collins’ and the Republicans’ use of the non-recollection claims as evidence that the event didn’t happen would have been unenlightened, but not fully despicable, under two conditions. The first is if the only relevant evidence had been Dr. Ford’s testimony contrasted with the claims of all the other witnesses not to recall anything. The second is if they didn’t purposefully mischaracterize the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims as refutations of Dr. Ford’s allegation..

The second condition wasn’t satisfied. So, even under the scenario 1 facts (i.e., no further corroborating evidence), the Republicans’ conduct should be viewed as despicable.

But fact-scenario 1 is just a theoretical construct. No one in the real world was operating with this understanding of the facts.

Scenario 2: The non-recollection claims only considering that the July 1, 1982, house-party occurred

In this category, I mean to take account of the existence of the July 1, 1982 house-party, as shown by Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar entry. But I don’t mean to assume that any additional analysis is done. So, I’m not considering the common-sense observation that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1 event.

The mere existence of his calendar entry, without any further analysis, does not corroborate Dr. Ford’s recollection of the event where she was sexually assaulted. Nor does it confirm that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party and that the two events are the same.

But the event’s mere existence does create the possibility that the house-party Dr. Ford described might have been the July 1 event. That possibility couldn’t be dismissed since other witnesses all claim not to remember the event. That possibility represents evidence in support of Dr. Ford’s allegation, even without confirming that the two events are the same.

The fact that Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar entry doesn’t include Dr. Ford is evidence that she wasn’t there. That inference was strengthened by Justice Kavanaugh’s strident testimony about how precise his calendars for the summer of 1982 were.

But there is no other event in his calendars which could be the event Dr. Ford described. So, her description of the event where she was assaulted is evidence that the event she described is the July 1 event. That is true without doing the additional analysis required to understand that it’s actually proof she was there.

The non-recollection claims should be given no weight against Dr. Ford in this scenario

Once Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar showed that an event occurred at which the seven listed boys were all present, their non-recollection claims should have been given zero weight. They claimed not to recall an event at which they were present.

Thus, their claims to have no memory of such an event were either unreliable indicators of what occurred or dishonest. So, their collective non-recollection claims could no longer be viewed as evidence that Dr. Ford might have been lying or delusional.

Ms. Keyser’s claimed non-recollection could also no longer be viewed as indicating that Dr. Ford is lying or delusional. If Ms. Keyser was at the July 1 house-party, she falls in the same category as the boys – having a memory that is unreliable or dishonest. If she wasn’t there, her non-recollection claim would be truthful but irrelevant.

There could be no justification in this fact-scenario for using the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses as evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t occur. Those claims are simply evidence of nothing, as they literally purport to be.

This scenario reflects reality for 100% of the political and media observers. They all knew about the July 1, 1982 house-party, even if they failed to apply their common sense to the known facts to understand that Dr. Ford was definitely at that event.

Scenario 3: The non-recollection claims taking account of the fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982, house-party

From her own recollection, Dr. Ford knew seven distinct details that were aligned with the July 1 event in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. Three of those details were the names of people who were present, which would each have been exceptionally difficult to guess.

The common-sense conclusion that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982 should have been apparent to observers

The common-sense conclusion that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982, shouldn’t have taken long for any sophisticated observer to reach. Dr. Ford’s knowledge of those seven details couldn’t have been a coincidence. And there is no explanation of how she could have acquired her knowledge other by having been present.

She didn’t learn the details she knew from any of the others who attended the house-party. None of them recalled the event or telling her about it. And anyone who told her would have remembered telling her and would have recalled the event itself.

The non-recollection claims should have been given no weight against Dr. Ford in this scenario

In this scenario, the event described by Dr. Ford has provably occurred and is the July 1, 1982 house-party. So, the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses are of no conceivable relevance. Accordingly, they should have been given no weight as evidence against Dr. Ford.

This scenario should have reflected the reality for the senators and media observers. Less quantitative observers may not have realized that the probability that Dr. Ford was present is far beyond a reasonable or unreasonable doubt. But common sense alone, without the benefit of quantitative skills, would have been sufficient to conclude that it was far more likely than not that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1 house-party.

And quantitative resources are not that difficult to come by. Any interested party could have gotten quantitative assistance with a statistical analysis. In any event, the senators and any major media outlets and observers should have concluded that Dr. Ford was at the July 1 house-party, whether or not they went to the trouble of performing or obtaining a statistical analysis.

The other witnesses’ non-recollection claims should have been given no weight as evidence against Dr. Ford

The other witnesses’ non-recollection claims do not represent evidence that the event described by Dr.Ford didn’t occur. That conclusion applies regardless of whether an observer was operating under a scenario 2 or scenario 3 understanding of the facts.

The crucial evidence concerning the July 1, 1982 house-party was revealed during the September 27, 2018 hearing. Beyond that point, every observer was operating in either fact-scenario 2 or fact-scenario 3. So, there was no rationale for any observer to give any evidentiary weight to the non-recollection claims of the other seven or eight people who were present at the July 1 event.

The non-recollection claims inappropriately impacted both the political and news media discussions of Dr. Ford’s allegation

Senator Collins improperly applied the alternative perspective to the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses

Senator Collins expressly used the alternative perspective to treat the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims as evidence against Dr. Ford. The senator emphasized Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim, as if it had particular importance.

However, the senator had to be aware of Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry if she watched the hearing or read the hearing transcript. So she was operating in fact-scenario 2, at a minimum. Accordingly, there was no justification for Senator Collins to treat the witnesses’ non-recollection claims as evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford did not occur.

Senator Collins irrationally expanded the alternative perspective of non-recollection claims, including by double-counting

As mentioned above, the senator even expanded the concept of non-recollection claims. She drew adverse inferences against the victim because known and unknown witnesses didn’t take affirmative actions to corroborate her account.

It might be possible to assess whether a known witness would recall an event if it had occurred. But that isn’t possible with an unknown witness, who might not even be alive. So, Senator Collins drawing adverse inferences from the inaction of an unidentified witness – like the unknown person who drove Dr. Ford home – was nonsensical.

The senator drew those negative inferences from inaction, even though the witnesses may not have any memory of the relevant events. Indeed the known witness claimed not to have any relevant memory as to whether the event described by Dr. Ford or the July 1, 1982 house-party occurred or didn’t occur.

There was no basis for her to give any weight to the non-recollection claims. Yet Senator Collins counted the same irrelevant phenomenon twice – once as a non-recollection and again as a failure to take affirmative action to provide corroboration.

I will describe other problems with Senator Collins’ justifications for ignoring Dr. Ford’s allegation in Blog #7.

The application of the alternative perspective by the news media was flawed, even only taking account of Dr. Ford’s testimony

There are significant problems with the way the news media has applied the alternative perspective in this instance. It hasn’t been used in a transparent manner that openly acknowledged the perspective’s use and which ensured that it would be thoughtfully applied.

The alternatives were either that Dr. Ford fabricated or imagined the event where she was sexually assaulted or that some or all of the other witnesses made false non-recollection claims. After Dr. Ford’s credible testimony, the more probable answer should have been that Dr. Ford was truthful and that some of the others were lying about what they remember.

Furthermore, the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses should have been viewed with suspicion. The idea that they had no idea whether or not they were present at the event described by Dr. Ford should have been viewed as dubious from the beginning.

The flawed application of the alternative perspective is reflected in the skewed outcome it produced. I see no evidence that any media observer applied the alternative perspective to conclude that the other witnesses were lying. It was only used to question or undermine Dr. Ford’s testimony, even though that was the less logical outcome.

That unbalanced or biased application of the alternative perspective is evident, even only taking account of Dr. Ford’s credible testimony.

The application of the alternative perspective was egregious, taking account of the calendar evidence

But the alternative perspective’s use against Dr. Ford reflects a significant media failure after the discussion of Justice Kavanaugh’s calendars occurred during the confirmation hearing. After that, no observer could have reasonably used that perspective to conclude that Dr. Ford might be lying or delusional.

First, after the existence of the July 1, 1982 calendar entry was known, the alternative perspective shouldn’t have been applied for the reasons discussed under fact-scenario 2 above. Moreover, the non-recollection claims of the seven male witnesses and Ms. Keyser should have been viewed with even more suspicion. The idea that they don’t know whether or not they were at the July 1 house-party is even more dubious.

Second, it only required common sense to discern that the July 1, 1982 house-party was the event described by Dr. Ford and that she was at the house-party. So, every observer who applied the alternative perspective should have concluded that her account is truthful, and some or all of the other witnesses’ claims that they don’t remember the house-party are dishonest.

Although the alternative perspective should have supported Dr. Ford, it was used against her

Accordingly, every observer who used it should have applied the alternative perspective in support of Dr. Ford’s allegation. However, observers could have decided that the alternative perspective should no longer be applied to avoid concluding that some or all of other witnesses were lying.

If they no longer applied the presumption, they would have no longer had to assume that either Dr. Ford or the other witnesses must be lying. It would have been a cop-out for observers to change the rules to avoid acknowledging that some or all of the the others were lying.

But what they actually did was much worse. The media observers who applied the alternative perspective continued to use it as a basis to question Dr. Ford’s truthfulness about whether the house-party she described occurred, even her honesty had been confirmed. Senator Collins and her Republican colleagues did likewise.

The observers who misapplied the alternative perspective missed the proof that Dr. Ford was at the house-party and the implications thereof.

Such media observers and the Republicans even ignored the definitive evidence that the house-party described by Dr. Ford occurred on July 1, 1982. Ignoring the proof she was there also obscured the implications of the fact that she was there.

One such implication is that the omission of Dr. Ford from the July 1 calendar entry was an admission of guilt. Another implication is that Dr. Ford was in the bedroom with Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge and that her sexual-assault allegation is true.

Looking Forward

Blog #5B will examine Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim.